It must be true of a certain number of Americans just as it would be true for a certain number of Brits or other nationality.
Americans come from many different backgrounds and from many different countries, so you can say just about anything that applies to some of them. But I don't think that is what you meant.
How can America be so two faced as to denounce Iran, North Korea and Syria whilst at the same time cosying up to Saudi Arabia and China?
The answer is that Saudi provides a large proportion of America's oil and China is a principal (not principle) trading partner. Not to mention that getting involved in a war with China may not be the walk in the park that the war with Iraq was. That's not to say that I think the two countries will never go to war.
The human rights record of both Saudi and China is abysmal and Saudi has a much stricter Islamic regime than does Iran. I've been there - twice - and seen what an obnoxious place it is.
As I've said before, the US seems to be intent on trying to kid the rest of the world that their intervention/interference in the affairs of other countries is benevolent - when will you realise that the rest of the world sees right through the pretence even though the majority of Americans may swallow the Whitehouse spin?
Quite simple actually. The USA has frequently criticized Saudi Arabia and China regarding their human rights policy. But since neither of these 2 countries is actively engaged in trying to conquer other countries, or export terrorism (apart from some individuals who live in those countries), then the USA will normally follow a policy of constructive engagement. When two countries are able to agree on mutual concerns and have economic ties beneficial to both countries, then that usually is the best way to impart cultural influences on the other country, which in these cases almost always leads to more freedom and more democracy and less aggression to other countries.
In cases where China has threatened Taiwan, the USA has been virtually alone in guaranteeing the defense of Taiwan, even when we receive strong criticism from the PRC.
In most cases, the US tries to be friendly with whomever is running another government at the time, without meddling in that country's internal affairs. Whenever America does raise objections or try to do anything to correct inequities, it is accused of intervention. So you can't have it both ways, accuse the US of acquiescence and intervention at the same time (even though that is exactly what many people try to claim the US does).
Regarding your comment on Europeans complicity with Nazis and terrorists, I hope you are not including Britain amongst those Europeans. Britain stood alone against Hitler after the fall of France, until Hitler foolishly turned on the Russians. The belated arrival of the Yanks in Europe came about when Roosevelt finally realised that America might soon stand alone against a completely fascist world if the Axis powers prevailed. Once again an example of Americas self interest. Up until that point of course America had contented herself with making a fortune from Britain and Russia from the sale of arms - a debt that took some 30 years for Britain to repay.
Belated arrival? 30 years to repay a debt? Maybe none of that would have been necessary (including the loss of several hundred thousands American lives in the European theatre) if Britain had not elected Nevil Chamberlain as its PM. BTW, there are still active debates going on as to whether the US should have intervened in Europe, and your claim that it was all because of American self-interest is not universally accepted.
I am very sorry that Britain took so long to pay off its WWII debts. The USA has not paid it debts off yet from WWII (we just keep refinancing the bonds). As to Americans making a fortune off the British and Russians, are you referring to private companies or the US government? I don't think that the US government made any profit.
Britain was later to fight a war against terrorism in Northern Ireland, a war on British sovereign territory by the way; where much of the funding and many of the weapons were obtained by the IRA from... America. No matter what your views on the Irish situation, the fact remains that the IRA were blowing up civilians both in N Ireland and on mainland Britain over a number of years.
When you say America, I think you mean individual Americans and not the US government. There are many Irish Americans in the US, and I presume that some gave money to Irish charities even when they did not realize they were fronts for terrorist organizations. Some Americans wonder WTF Britain is doing in Ireland to begin with, but I guess we all have to pay for past sins, as the US has had to pay in many cases also for its past sins. Maybe the slogan "the sun never sets on the British empire" is not necessarily something to be proud of.
There is nothing wrong with America putting her own interests first - just be honest about it and accept the fact that the rest of the world don't like it because you are able to throw your weight around. That might not last for ever though.
How kind of you to say there is nothing wrong with American foreign policy being guided by self-interest. Implicit in your remark is the subtle suggestion that only American policy is guided by self-interest and everyone else (or anyone else) is guided by charity and compassion (which is sheer bunk and you know it).